Admin Urges SCOTUS to Stop Mail-In Vote07/28 06:25

   

   WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on 
Monday to clear the way for an executive order from President Donald Trump that 
could dramatically change mail-in voting ahead of November's midterm elections.

   The Justice Department asked the justices to halt for now lower court 
decisions blocking the sweeping changes in nearly half the country.

   The request comes shortly after Trump delivered a primetime address 
elevating his yearslong push to raise doubts about the legitimacy of elections, 
and could be one of several voting-related challenges before the court ahead of 
the high-stakes midterm contest.

   Trump ordered the government in March to create a "state citizenship list" 
of eligible voters and deliver mail ballots only to people on that list.

   Democratic officials in 23 states and the District of Columbia sued, saying 
the Constitution gives states and Congress the authority to set election rules, 
not the president. Their attorneys have said Trump's proposed changes are ripe 
for abuse and could cause chaos.

   A judge in Massachusetts blocked the executive order for the plaintiff 
states, and a divided 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel left her ruling 
in place over the weekend.

   The executive order calls for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and 
the commissioner of the Social Security Administration to send state officials 
federal citizenship lists to determine eligible voters. It tells the U.S. 
Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to people on the lists.

   The order also calls for ballots to have secure envelopes with unique 
barcodes for tracking. Federal funding could be withheld from states and 
localities that don't comply.

   The appeal argues that Trump's order lays out "general policy guidance" and 
doesn't directly dictate how states run their elections. Solicitor General D. 
John Sauer asked the high court to freeze the judge's order as lawsuits play 
out, calling it indefensible.

   "And the injunction is especially indefensible because the agencies are 
still deliberating over how (if at all) to implement the Order, yet the 
district court preemptively decided that whatever the agencies may choose to do 
will necessarily be unlawful," Sauer wrote.

   He urged the high court to move quickly, arguing that any new policies would 
have to be in place as soon as August to be effective for the November 
elections. A response to the appeal is due Aug. 3.

   Mail balloting has long been a favorite target for Trump, even as he has 
used the method to cast his own votes. He has blamed it for his loss to 
Democrat Joe Biden in 2020 and has claimed without evidence that it opens the 
door to fraud. He returned to that theme Monday during an appearance at a 
General Motors facility in Michigan as he was making an appeal for Congress to 
pass his voter ID and proof-of-citizenship bill.

   "And hopefully there will be no mail-in ballots," he said, calling them 
'inherently corrupt."

   Using mail ballots has become increasingly popular with voters of both 
parties, with about 30% of all ballots cast that way during the 2024 
presidential election, according to federal data. The process also is secure. A 
2025 Brookings Institution study found only about four cases of fraud out of 
every 10 million mail ballots cast.

   The Supreme Court has ruled against the Trump administration before on 
mail-in ballots, finding in June that states can count ballots that arrive 
after Election Day.

   Trump has promoted the proposed changes in his executive order as safeguards 
to keep non-U.S. citizens from voting. He's also repeatedly pressed for the 
passage of the legislation that requires proof of citizenship to vote.

   Noncitizen voting has been shown to be rare, and is a felony that can be 
punishable by deportation.

   U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani in Boston, who was nominated by 
Democratic President Barack Obama, agreed in June to halt implementation for 
the Nov. 3 elections.

   Her ruling differed from that of another federal judge based in Washington. 
U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, who was appointed by Trump, found in May that 
it was too early to block the order because it had not yet been implemented.

   The office of California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is leading the 
lawsuit for the states, did not immediately comment on the Trump 
administration's appeal. New York Attorney General Letitia James' office 
declined to comment.

   The Postal Service also would not discuss its plans regarding implementing 
Trump's order or its rule, citing the ongoing litigation. In Kansas, Republican 
Secretary of State Scott Schwab's office said it has not heard from the Postal 
Service about plans going forward.